Iain Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for the question and pay tribute to her fantastic work in her role as chair of the all-party group on the matter. Good progress has been made, as she suggests, but it is very important that we have a degree of political consensus. It is in no one's interests for Gypsies and Travellers to be set against the settled community. We need a comprehensive range of accommodation needs assessments in place to ensure that authorised sites are brought forward; otherwise, we will have community tensions and increased enforcement costs to local authorities and taxpayers. That is in no one's interests, so I hope that Members in all parts of the House—and, crucially, local authorities—can work together to ensure that we bring forward those much-needed accommodation assessments.

Iain Wright: I agree with the hon. Lady—she is right about access to health care and other public services. There are huge disparities and inequalities between Gypsies' and Travellers' life expectancy and educational attainment, and that of the settled community. It is the Government's job to try to help address that. Provision of sites close to health facilities such as dentists' and doctors' surgeries, and to good schools, is vital, but there are of course good schools, dentists and doctors in rural areas, too. Local areas and authorities are best placed to assess that.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be relieved to hear that he shares the view of the consumer organisations, which have strongly welcomed both the scheme that the Government have put in place and the speed at which we have been able to do so. That is completely unprecedented—the Conservatives did not lift a finger last time, as I said, so no one has any experience of putting forward such a scheme. In fact, the only people who have so far not welcomed what the Government are doing are the Conservatives.
	I entirely share my hon. Friend's view: we are very concerned and we are continuing to pursue the issue, especially of tenants who may well be continuing to pay their rent in the proper way, but whose landlord may be defaulting on the mortgage. We have already put provisions in place whereby there should be a greater period of notice, but I take the view—I am confident that my hon. Friend, and perhaps the whole House, will share it—that although having seven or eight weeks' notice to quit because the landlord has not paid the mortgage is better than two weeks, it still means that the person is without a home. We are looking as a matter of urgency to see whether more can be done here.

Margaret Beckett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	If the hon. Lady, who clearly has a number of detailed issues about the work of the Planning Inspectorate, would like to write to me, I would be happy to reply providing more detail in response to the different issues she wishes to raise. We think that about 34 cases would have gone to the IPC. The House needs to recognise and take into account that a completely new—and, we believe, much better—system is being put in place whereby policy statements will be made about the overall issues, and then individual applications will be assessed against those policy statements. That, we believe, will simplify and streamline the process. That is why we believe that it will have a beneficial impact—not the impact that the hon. Lady suggests.

David Davies: When I last raised this issue, I asked the Secretary of State for an assurance that not one penny of Government money was being given to extremists or to violent extremists. She was unable to give me that assurance at the time, but the Department has now had a year to look into the issue. Can we possibly be given an assurance today that not one penny of Government money is being given to extremists, and if not, why not?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that he has raised the issue before. I am delighted to be able to tell him about the range of work that has been done in the last 12 months. First, extensive guidance was published for all local authorities in June last year, setting out exactly the criteria on which groups should be funded. We fund groups that stand up to tackle violent extremism and uphold our shared values. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that following a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), I undertook to place in the Library of the House, by the end of April, full details—they are held in our Government offices—of the projects being funded.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right that concern is sometimes expressed among a variety of groups, and I am therefore keen not simply to work with the Muslim community, because tackling violent extremism in our country is not an issue for the Muslim community on its own; we must all make sure that we have resilient communities. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are now doing much more work across a wider section of the faith community—the interfaith week will be held later this year. I am also keen to do more to tackle far-right extremism. All of us want to create communities where hatred and division have no part to play.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is clearly trying to deal with this matter in a very sensitive and realistic way, but does not this whole issue of retained firemen—there are a number in my constituency and they play a vital and valuable role in the fire and rescue service—show that it is inappropriate for such matters to be dealt with on a European-wide basis, given that the culture and practices in this country can be very different from those in other countries of the European Union? Will he give a guarantee today that we will continue to exercise the opt-out?

Stewart Jackson: The Minister conveniently body-swerved the very direct substantive question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper). The House will know that on December 13 Labour MEPs voted to abandon the UK's opt-out on the working time directive—the Chief Fire Officers Association has said that such a policy would mean that the fire service could not function effectively. Does the Minister accept that as his party is completely divided on this issue and its MEPs are voting against our national interest, the UK's negotiating position is weaker as a consequence of that split?

Sadiq Khan: The UK Government are committed to defending the opt-out and other flexibilities in the common position agreed by the Council of Ministers last June. We would like an agreement to be reached—as I said, the next round of talks is on 23 April—but not at any price. I have indicated our views on the opt-out, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware from an earlier conversation between us of the respect that I have for retained firefighters. They do an invaluable job and the fire and rescue authorities around the country would not be able to do their fantastic job without them.

Sharon Hodgson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding the need to keep people in their jobs, it is essential that we maintain capacity in the construction industry, both in the north-east and across the country, so that when the upturn comes we can get straight down to building the quantity of quality new homes that this country will need?

Neil Turner: I understand that the ring-fencing of the Supporting People programme will abolished shortly—which I welcome—and the money will be included in the base funding for local authorities. I urge my right hon. Friend to take this opportunity to ensure that that money goes to local authorities on the basis of measured need, rather than historical spending patterns.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has a proud record of making the case for the allocation of resources on the basis of need and ensuring that we address deprivation in particular communities. I am pleased that he welcomes the un-ring-fencing of the Supporting People grant for the very reasons that we debated earlier today. If we give more freedom and flexibility to local authorities, we often get better results from spending. I will certainly take notice of the points that he has made today about allocation on the basis of need and will report back to him fully.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has recently completed a worthwhile and useful visit to Pakistan, where he was able to see at first hand some of the pressures felt. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to work with our international partners to tackle the severe terrorist threat that this country faces and it is not the case that my hon. Friend was seeking to distance himself from a particular policy. He was rightly drawing to our attention the need to ensure that we are aware of the pressures on a range of communities, both abroad and in this country, and are therefore able to prepare our response accordingly. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend shares absolutely our policies aimed at tackling radicalisation in this country.

Celia Barlow: I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on flexibility for the use of empty shops, but I am sure that she would agree that it is best that those shops should not be empty and that support should be given to our local small businesses, cafés and restaurants. More than 100 constituents and local traders have contacted me, concerned that a large supermarket has shown an interest in opening up in a marvellous area of small shops in my constituency of Hove. Is she considering possible secondary legislation so that the impact on the community and small businesses of such developments can be taken into account in those cases?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. What we also need to do is to try to support businesses so that the shops do not become empty in the first place. That is why we have small business rate relief and why we have allowed a lot of small businesses to defer their pay-as-you-earn, or PAYE, tax. More than 100,000 businesses have taken advantage of that. My hon. Friend also discussed the impact of large supermarkets, and she will know that in our planning policy statement 6 on town centres, we have done a great deal of work to try to ensure that any possible impact on our town centres is taken extremely seriously when any development is proposed. At the moment, we do not have proposals for legislation, but she will know that the planning framework is crucial to ensuring that those development decisions do not damage the very important vibrancy of our town centres.

Bob Spink: I welcome the Government's policy of restricting development in the green belt, on floodplains and on school playing fields that have been sold off by councils. What would the Minister say to Castle Point borough councillors who want to build hundreds of houses on a school playing field on Canvey Island that is in the flood-risk area and in the green belt?

Norman Baker: The European Commission has indicated that it is minded to uphold a complaint that I have made against East Sussex county council for breaking procurement rules in respect of its waste contract, and in particular of the hugely unpopular proposed incinerator in Newhaven. On this occasion, my concerns are naturally to do with the Tory council rather than the Government, but nevertheless I understand that the formal notification is likely to come to the Department for Communities and Local Government. Will the Secretary of State agree to arrange that I can have a short meeting with the relevant Minister before she sends a formal response to the European Commission?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am quite a fan of direct elections and I am certainly keen to ensure that there is as much democracy as possible in our political system. I have never believed that direct democracy is somehow challenging to other organisations. Having said that, I am sure that there will be debate about membership of the national parks organisations. I will certainly examine the issue to see whether it is possible to have more direct democracy in the organisation.

Phil Wilson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require insolvency practitioners to provide information regarding redundancies to employment agencies when a company goes into administration within a specified period; and for connected purposes.
	At a time of global recession, and its effect on our economy and our people, this Bill aims to improve the relationship between insolvency practitioners and employment agencies, especially Jobcentre Plus. At present, when a company goes into liquidation there is no duty on the administrator to inform Jobcentre Plus of redundancies. I believe that to be wrong.
	To be fair, some administrators inform Jobcentre Plus and allow access, but not on all occasions. Employees should have access to the help Jobcentre Plus can offer as soon as possible, and it should not be denied. My Bill calls for a requirement to be placed on administrators to inform Jobcentre Plus of a redundancy situation as soon as possible, and invite the agency to meet those facing unemployment when the company is going into liquidation. It is all about putting people first in difficult times.
	Earlier this year, Jobcentre Plus was informed by a company in my constituency that it was going into liquidation. The company informed the redundancy manager at Jobcentre Plus of the insolvency practitioner involved. A series of phone calls took place between the redundancy manager and the practitioner, in which the Jobcentre Plus representative requested access to the employees to issue redundancy packs. The practitioner said they did not want Jobcentre Plus on the site in case it inflamed the situation.
	The redundancy manager was on standby to go to the factory because information had been received that the administrator was holding a meeting with staff on that day. The redundancy manager called the administrator on several occasions only to be told that the meeting had taken place at 8 o'clock that morning and that 175 staff had been made redundant, the majority of whom had been sent home. On hearing that, the redundancy manager immediately went to the site in question and managed to catch between 15 and 20 staff. Redundancy information packs were issued to them and the administrator gave an assurance that it would send the remaining packs to the rest of the work force. When I heard that, the words "stable doors" and "horses bolting" came to mind.
	The majority of staff at the factory had not been made aware before they left the site of the support and services available to them. Many of those made unemployed had worked for more than 20 years and were unaware of the processes and conditions for claiming benefit; nor were they aware of the redundancy support available to them through the rapid response service. Jobcentre Plus was left with the task of trying to identify those customers as they made claims for benefit.
	In another part of the north-east, another company went into liquidation. Staff were not even able to get on to the site to clear their personal effects, as the gates were locked. Jobcentre Plus found out the name of the administrator only through the pages of the local newspaper, and the insolvency practitioner could not help because the staff had all gone home. However, Jobcentre Plus tells me that on other occasions elsewhere in the region it has received excellent support from administrators. They hold joint meetings with employees to talk them through the situation and set out how they can be helped through redundancy. On occasion, redundancy information packs have even been delivered by hand. Those are obviously examples of good practice; if a redundancy situation arises, that is how we would like it to be handled.
	We need to iron out the inconsistencies across the piece, not only among insolvency practitioners, but perhaps at the Jobcentre Plus and Insolvency Service end, too. Between April 2008 and March 2009, there were 3,555 redundancies in County Durham. Of those, 513 were caused by company liquidations. Nationally, the figure stands at over 112,000. I want all those people to be treated the same—with respect, not as another commodity that needs to be sorted out, like a piece of machinery left on the site. We are talking about human beings, many with families, all with hopes and aspirations. The Bill will, I believe, go some way towards ensuring that they are treated with dignity.
	How would such a Bill work in practice? It would oblige the insolvency practitioner to inform Jobcentre Plus of the situation as soon as possible, but before the liquidation is announced, where there are more than 20 employees involved. There will be an obligation on the administrator to work with Jobcentre Plus to prepare employees for redundancy. The employment service can then act in the most professional way possible and use its expertise to help the employees through the most difficult of times.
	Those words and sentiments may be fine, but we need to provide further assistance to insolvency practitioners, Jobcentre Plus and the Insolvency Service. Their relationship needs to be better co-ordinated on the ground. That is why I have already met, both separately and jointly, Jobcentre Plus and R3, the insolvency practitioners' trade body. I intend to meet the Insolvency Service soon. The Department for Work and Pensions needs to provide R3 with hotline telephone numbers, so that administrators have one point of contact in a region. R3 needs to inform Jobcentre Plus of its major practitioners, so that high-level contact can be maintained at all times. The DWP should issue a rapid-response toolkit to insolvency practitioners, so that they can fully engage with the employees and Jobcentre Plus.
	It is to the credit of Jobcentre Plus, the Insolvency Service and R3 that they are ready to look at the problem and to try to resolve it. R3 has assured me that it will work closely with Jobcentre Plus to ensure that people who face redundancy are offered the support and advice that they need. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs has offered me the opportunity to meet the Insolvency Service to discuss the best way of ensuring that insolvency practitioners are aware of their responsibilities and act on them. I know that he has already written to insolvency practitioners, through the Insolvency Service, about the matter.
	The main players—the DWP, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and insolvency practitioners—are nearing the same page, but I want to see them on the same page; that is why the Bill is important. I want the sentiments that I have set out to be put into action. A code of conduct needs to be drawn up, and there should be regular meetings between the partners to ensure that the code of conduct is implemented by all parties. The trade unions agree with the move, too. There must be a role for them in the process, so that the whole architecture of the Bill is based on partnership. I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that his Department will look into introducing trade unions into that partnership.
	I believe fundamentally that the Bill would close a loophole—an important loophole at that—in the Government's approach to helping the unemployed back into work. It is a well-known fact that the sooner someone who is out of work contacts Jobcentre Plus, the sooner they can access work. Today, as a result of the Government's proactive approach to getting people off the dole, 75 per cent. of those out of work still find a job within 6 months. By comparing my experience of this global recession with my experience of the home-grown recessions of the '80s and '90s, I hope to give extra impetus to the passage of the Bill, and give the Government confidence that our approach, which is to help those who are out of work, instead of leaving them to their own devices, is right. Doing nothing is not an option.
	Unemployment in Sedgefield went up from 1,077 in February last year to 2,456 in February this year. The rate of increase has been rapid, but started from a low base. Even with that rate of increase, the present situation does not compare with the recession of the early '90s, and especially not with that of the 1980s. In January 1986, unemployment in Sedgefield hit 5,346. Of those people, more than 2,000 had been out of work for 12 months or more. Today, only 70 people in Sedgefield have been out of work for 12 months or more. The last time unemployment in Sedgefield was about 2,500 was in 1996. Almost 600 of those people—more than one in five—had been out of work for over 12 months.
	Every person made unemployed is not only an economic tragedy but, more importantly, a personal tragedy for the individual and family concerned. That is why the Government have learned the lessons of the 1980s and 1990s. People who find themselves unemployed cannot be left behind. That is why access to Jobcentre Plus is imperative. In February some 250,000 people left jobseeker's allowance and found another job. This proves three things to me: people have a better skills set than they once did, Jobcentre Plus is doing its job by finding jobs for people, and the Government's economic strategy is beginning to work.
	The response that I have received from Ministers, Jobcentre Plus, R3 and others to the issues outlined in my Bill prove that the Government are not complacent and are putting hard-working families at the centre of their actions. My Bill will build on the Government's proactive approach, and will go some way towards ensuring that those made redundant have the earliest possible access to the services provided by Jobcentre Plus. The Government are doing their best to treat those out of work with dignity. The Bill proposes to do the same.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Phil Wilson, Mr. John Heppell, Jim Dowd, Mary Creagh, Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods, Mr. Jamie Reed, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mr. Ian McCartney, Tony Lloyd, Mrs. Sharon Hodgson, Andrew Miller and Mr. Frank Doran present the Bill.
	Phil Wilson accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 84).

Mark Prisk: I welcome you to the Chair, Sir Alan, for the Committee stage of our proceedings.
	Clause 1 amends the cumulative limit on the financial support for business under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. I accept that, as such, it does not authorise actual expenditure, but can the Minister confirm that authorisation for the orders involved, under the new wording, will be made by affirmative resolution? Furthermore, does he accept that it would be good practice that when each order is submitted for debate, it should be accompanied by a detailed update as to the range of schemes involved and their current funding levels?
	At present, the Government publish only an annual report, which is often unrelated to the issuing of the orders in question. It would be more helpful if we in the House had the chance to consider the current schemes at the time when we debated the Government's request to increase their funding limits. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider that carefully and make a specific response in his reply to the debate, should he catch the Chairman's eye.
	On Second Reading the Minister cited as one of the main reasons for moving to a higher limit of £12 billion the Government's wish to switch away from grants and to increase the proportion of support in the form of loans and loan guarantees. Will he therefore tell us what proportion of the current £6 billion is in grants and what proportion is in loans and loan guarantees?
	Overall, the Opposition agree that loans and loan guarantees are often a better form of business support than grants. After all, money for loans can be recycled, but loans are also treated differently by their recipients. When I ran my business a few years ago, I was also a mentor for the Prince's Youth Business Trust, helping young people to start up businesses. I saw then how the provision of loans motivated a start-up firm far more than a grant did. It is not that surprising; one is far more likely to try to maximise the value of funding if one knows that the money has to be paid back, than if one knows that it has been gifted.
	On the whole, therefore, the Opposition support a shift in the balance of financial support. However, it would be helpful, not least in considering the clause, to understand better the current balance. Indeed, of the future £12 billion, and the potential £16 billion that the Government expect to include in the legislation, what proportion do they expect to take the form of a loan over the next five years?
	Further, the Minister on Second Reading failed to inform us of the balance of the schemes and their exact proportion of the total. He mentioned a list of different schemes, and we have debated them on numerous occasions, but he has not told us which are the most important. So, in reply to this debate, will he tell us the five most important schemes by value under the clause, their current value and by how much he expects their value to increase with the new total of £12 billion? That will enable us better to understand the direct impact not only on small, medium and large enterprises, but on different business sectors, which I know he is keen to be seen to support.
	Finally, on clause 1, the Minister mentioned on Second Reading that the Bill's remit includes funds for the post office network, and I am delighted to see the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs in the Chamber. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the Minister responsible for the Bill, however, tell us how much has already been allocated to the scheme, and how much has been paid out to date?

Mark Prisk: The annual report can be helpful, but as the Minister will understand and Members on both sides of the House will appreciate, when we are considering an order for an increase of the not-insubstantial sums identified in clause 1, it will be helpful if we can see the current point when we debate the issue in Committee. That—not simply the annual report—was what my point was about. Does the Minister not accept that that would improve the quality of scrutiny in the House?

Ian Pearson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I undertake to consider it. If we lay affirmative resolutions, we want to be able to give the reason why they are necessary. Obviously, that would relate to the spend or potential liabilities as a result of Government commitments.
	The hon. Gentleman asked specific questions about the top five schemes that appear. He can see them from the annual report. They include the grant for business investment—previously called "selective financial assistance"—the enterprise finance guarantee scheme and the Post Office reinvention programme; those would account for the bulk of it. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the Post Office reinvention programme and, as he will be aware, we have made a commitment to the programme of £1.7 billion over the years 2006 to 2011. At this point, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an actual expenditure figure, although I am sure that some of that information can be made available. However, it is clear that there is a programme of spend going on over a five-year period, and that that spend will take place at the appropriate time for the business.

Ian Pearson: No, I am not saying that. I want to draw a distinction between schemes that have been in the annual report previously and new schemes that the Government have introduced. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the automotive assistance programme was launched only on 27 January this year. It is a new scheme and, as with all new schemes, it had to go through a process of securing EU state aid approval, which was granted on 27 February. We are in detailed discussions with several automotive companies about the programme. He will be aware of the recent announcements made under the European Investment Bank element of the programme whereby Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan have been offered loans by the EIB. We will want to report to Parliament on the automotive assistance programme and on other programmes in due course, because we believe that there should be full accountability in this area.
	The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which replaced the small firms loan guarantee scheme, is now very much up and running. It is spending significant sums of money, to the tune of about £30 million in loans offered every week. The latest figures that I have seen show that well over 2,000 businesses have made applications to it.
	I think that it is now time for the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Solihull to welcome the new scheme and to recognise that the Government have introduced it in a remarkably short period, and that it is providing valued support to companies and helping to make a difference to those that are receiving it.

Lorely Burt: I am sure that all Members welcome any funding that is finally trickling through to business. The Minister mentioned Jaguar Land Rover. Its assistance under the EIB element has not yet materialised, as it is still waiting for the Government's due diligence to take place. It is obviously important that due diligence takes place, but it appears to be taking a long time—why is that?

Ian Pearson: Let me clarify the situation. Jaguar Land Rover has successfully applied to the EIB for a loan to undertake a number of green projects, and it will be up to the Government to provide a guarantee for that loan. That is part of the package of support that Jaguar Land Rover will need to secure its long-term future. We are in discussions with the owners of JLR, as well as its management and its banks, about a package to ensure that it can continue to develop its model programme and have a secure future. The hon. Lady knows JLR well because of her constituency connections. She will be aware that as a west midlands MP, I am also fully aware of its strategic importance not only to the west midlands economy but more generally to the automotive industry in the United Kingdom. We need to continue the discussions that we are having. However, I emphasise the fact that JLR is a successful company that, as with all motor companies, is suffering from the severe economic downturn, which has affected its business just as other businesses in the automotive industry have been affected. However, it was making good profits in the period January to June 2008, and there is absolutely no reason why it cannot do so in future. We need to continue to consider what is the appropriate role for Government in providing support to JLR, and we are doing that in the discussions that we are taking forward with it at the moment.
	The other point that I want to make about clause 1 is related to the request from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford that we seek to break down how much has been provided in grants and how much will potentially be provided in loans and loan guarantees. I do not have those figures to hand, but clearly expenditure, whether in the form of grants, loans or loan guarantees, all scores towards the need for an authority to spend. We are seeking in the Bill an increase in the limits. However, I will reflect on whether we can provide more and better information, not just in the form of an annual report but on a slightly more regular basis. It would not be appropriate to have a running commentary every week or month, but I recognise that it is not unreasonable to want some more detail about spending progress.

Ian Pearson: I certainly accept that the reason why we need to increase the limits is that a lot of the programmes that we have looked to introduce have been guarantee schemes. Whether the headline guarantee figure is £1.3 billion for the enterprise finance guarantee or £2.3 billion for the automotive assistance programme, all scores towards the need for the authority to incur expenditure. In that sense, I have given the hon. Gentleman some of the key figures. I shall happily write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library, explaining a further detailed breakdown of the schemes as far as I can. Obviously some of that will depend on future draw-down of loan guarantees, so inevitably figures cannot be precise, but we can certainly provide more information. I am happy to undertake that that will be done.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ian Pearson: I can indeed assure the Committee that there is nothing in clause 2 that dilutes the high environmental standards or the policies against bribery and corruption that are adopted by the Government. Let me respond to the debate by saying some words about the reason for clause 2. I apologise if I go slightly broader than amendment 1, but other hon. Members have done so, and it seems appropriate for me to do so, too.
	The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) rightly raised the issue of the problem of using the word "facilitating" when it comes to the supplies of goods or services. That has created difficulties for British exporters since the Export Credits Guarantee Department cannot facilitate exports if they have already been supplied. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out and as I did on Second Reading, there are two main reasons why the problems occurred and why this amendment to the ECGD's current powers was proposed.
	The first reason is the way in which the high-value capital goods market now works, which often means that requests for ECGD support are made later in the process of export. Buyers or overseas project sponsors rather than the exporters often approach the ECGD for support and buyers seek support only after the exports have been procured and some of the relevant goods or services have been supplied. In many cases with these products, a process of supply takes place.
	Secondly, the ECGD's decision-making processes have evolved in recent years to implement wider Government policy on corruption and on environmental and social impacts. I think that all Members will very much welcome that fact. These are directed by the ECGD's business principles and involve rigorous due diligence. Of course, that can take time and can delay the ECGD's ability to make a decision until the supply has been completed. The amendment would allow the ECGD to support exports that have already been made by the time the ECGD has completed its due diligence, but I want to assure this Committee of the whole House that clause 2 does not in any way detract from the rigorous standards that we want to apply to any export that the ECGD is considering exporting.
	Amendment 1 concerns the application of the ECGD's environmental policies, I re-emphasise the fact that the clause does not alter the ECGD's business principles or the triggers for their application to cases. If there were to be a change to the ECGD's practices in that regard, ECGD's business principles themselves state that the ECGD will consult.
	I also report to the Committee that, as my noble Friend Lord Mandelson announced yesterday in the White Paper "New Industry, New Jobs", the ECGD will in the weeks ahead consult on ways of further supporting levels of credit for UK exporters. The Government will ensure that the support offered by the ECGD plays a significant role in supporting UK exporters when demand picks up. It is right to consider at this time a wider role for the ECGD in providing support, but we will consult on that.
	I invite the Committee to reject the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) for three reasons. I do not believe that it is necessary, appropriate or workable, so let me try to explain why. The amendment is based on the assumption that clause 2 will somehow weaken the ECGD's application of its business principles. As I have been at pains to make out, that is not the case. The assumption is mistaken. Clause 2 allows the ECGD to provide support for British supplies that have been made by the time assessments have been completed. It makes no change whatever to the business principles. The only difference is that the circumstances in which the ECGD may consider giving support have been extended to include supplies already being made. It is thus the Government's strongly held view that the amendment is simply unnecessary.
	I believe that the amendment is also loosely drafted. It is not clear whether the requirement to carry out a case impact assessment is intended to apply to all exports supported by the ECGD or just to a sub-set of them, such as exports completed before it makes the decision to provide support or exports completed before the Bill comes into force and before the ECGD makes the decision to provide support. One interpretation of the amendment might be that a case impact assessment is required only in relation to exports completed prior to the Bill's coming into force and/or to exports completed prior to the ECGD making a decision to provide support. It seems odd to require a case impact assessment for a sub-set of the ECGD's business only.
	The amendment could also be interpreted more widely to apply to all exports supported by the ECGD. A statutory obligation would be imposed on the ECGD to conduct a case impact assessment before entering into any arrangements in connection with exports under section 1 of the ECGD's governing Act. That would represent a change in the ECGD's policy in a way that is not within the scope of the Bill, and it would not be appropriate to change the ECGD's environmental policy by statute.
	I assume—although it is not made clear—that the amendment is intended to enshrine in statute the ECGD's case impact assessment as it exists today, and to give statutory force to the assessment. I believe that that would be largely unworkable. The ECGD's application of its business principles, including those that govern when a case impact assessment must be carried out, is a matter of publicly stated policy.
	Maintaining the business principles as a policy allows them to be adapted to take account of changes in international standards: for example, to reflect new recommendations and common approaches issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on bribery and corruption, sustainable development or the environment. If the business principles or any aspect of them were enshrined in statute, it would be much more difficult for the ECGD to comply with its international undertakings, as primary legislation would be required on each occasion to allow it to adapt the relevant business principles to reflect changes in international agreements.
	Similarly, primary legislation would be required for any increase in the rigour of the business principles, and I do not think that some of the groups mentioned by the hon. Lady would want that to happen. We want the ECGD to maintain high standards, but I do not think that enshrining the business principles in statutory legislation and having to pass primary legislation every time we wanted to change them represents a good use of parliamentary time. Given that—as Members will know—the OECD is currently discussing changes in some of these areas, I do not think that that would be workable in practice.
	My main point, however, it that the amendment is unnecessary. I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks: no watering down is taking place. The ECGD's business principles will continue to apply—on bribery and corruption, sustainable development and the environment—and the ECGD will continue to apply them as rigorously as it does today. I hope that, given those assurances, she will seek leave to withdraw her amendment.

Ian Pearson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This is a small Bill with just three clauses, but as the House agreed when we considered it at an earlier stage, it is vital that we continue to help businesses as much as we can in these exceptional economic times. The Bill proposes two amendments to the Industrial Development and the Export and Investment Guarantees Acts.
	The first clause is essential to enable the section 8 power of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to continue to be used to give financial assistance to industry for the purposes specified in that Act. That is necessary to continue to strengthen the provision of support for businesses so that they can come through the global economic downturn stronger. As has previously been explained, the Bill seeks to amend the cumulative limit on financial assistance that may be provided under section 8 to an initial ceiling of £12 billion increasable by four orders of £1 billion each to an overall limit of £16 billion. We have previously discussed this measure, and I think there is widespread support for it.
	The new forms of support that the Government have been seeking to provide for industry have principally been loan guarantees or loans, and I think there has been acceptance on both sides of the House that that is an appropriate policy intervention. That is why we propose today to increase the limits. Let me offer the example of the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which has been providing real help to viable businesses.
	Since the launch of the scheme in January, almost £270 million-worth of eligible applications have been granted or processed or assessed from more than 2,300 firms. On 31 March, we announced the solutions for business portfolio, which makes it simpler for businesses to access the support they need. For the first time, all Government help for business, including section 8 support schemes, now share an easy, identifiable banner and can be accessed through Business Link. That has been welcomed by a wide range of business organisations, including the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI, but without the introduction of the new limits, the legislative basis for those proposals under section 8 would be exceeded on reaching the limit of £6.1 billion allowed by the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Act 2003. We therefore need the new powers to ensure that viable businesses continue to receive the support they need.
	Clause 2 has also been welcomed by the CBI, and I hope that environmental groups and groups that are active in the field of ensuring that the UK has high standards in combating bribery and corruption understand the points I was making in response to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) about the Government intending to continue to maintain high standards and their business principles when looking at large capital goods exports. The Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 governs the work of the Export Credit Guarantee Department, a Government Department that reports to the Secretary of State. As I have said, we have had difficulties with the facilitating of supplies and clause 2 seeks to address that. The high value capital goods market works very differently now than it did a number of years ago, and the measure essentially clarifies and legitimises ECGD support, rather than in anyway diluting the standards that would apply when assessing individual applications for high capital goods; I am happy to confirm that.
	If that amendment were not made, British exporters would continue to risk discrimination from overseas project sponsors, because ECGD would not be able to give the type of support that sponsors want. Other export credit agencies in competitor nations are not restricted in the same way in supporting exports that have already taken place, and without this change ECGD support would be reduced as a result of the increasing number of applications that are made to it at too late a stage in the project for its support to be given. That, of course, would be the position in any circumstances, but in the current economic circumstances support for British exports is particularly important. Over recent months, interest in ECDG support and applications for its assistance have, unsurprisingly, increased significantly. The export industry has made it clear that it feels that the problems that we are addressing through clause 2 are serious for it, which is why it has welcomed the amendment.
	As I have made clear, the special interest groups that are concerned about this amendment can be reassured by the fact that the criteria applied to projects where the export has been completed will not be altered or made less stringent. The business principles, be they relating to the environment or to bribery and corruption, are not weakened as a result of the amendment—indeed, it meets a recommendation of the Environmental Audit Committee that would, in the EAC's view, strengthen the ECDG's environmental scrutiny. A report on the ECDG and sustainable development that the Committee published last year recommended the following:
	"No offer of support should be made, whether actual or provisional, until ECDG's Business Principles Unit has completed its assessment"
	of the project to which the exports are destined. Although I do not agree that the ECDG's environmental scrutiny might be compromised by provisional offers of support, the Bill allows the ECGD to implement the EAC's recommendation. Its environmental scrutiny can now be completed, and a final offer of support made thereafter, without regard to the timing of the delivery of the export.
	We face a unique set of economic challenges. I am pleased that hon. Members from all parts have recognised the need for these additional powers and have been supportive of the main aims of the Bill, and I am grateful for the constructive approach that Opposition Members have taken. This Bill may not have had a lengthy passage—it has indeed been a short one—but there has been a proper opportunity for scrutiny on Second Reading and in Committee. These important measures will help to deliver the real assistance and support that business needs at these difficult times, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mark Prisk: I thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he deals with my many and often detailed questions. I hope that they keep him and his office busy, but my intention is to ensure that the House's scrutiny is thorough. He is always courteous in how he handles it, despite being on a sticky wicket, and he defends his position with patience and a degree of calmness that I suspect others would not achieve—I appreciate that, as I am sure the House does. May I also take the opportunity at the beginning of Third Reading to thank the Clerks for their support, because the legislation of this House occurs only with their efficiency and effectiveness? We rarely commend and thank them, but we should do so more often—I just wanted to put that on the record.
	The Minister has alluded to the fact that the passage of this Bill has been brief, and that belies the huge sums attached to it. After all, it is not every day that three clauses equate to £16 billion. Conservative Members support raising the upper limits, and we are satisfied that the House will have the appropriate opportunity to scrutinise the process. We also recognise the need to update the law on exports and for government to help British business to remain competitive. We, along with other Members, have raised our concerns in respect of ensuring that ethical and environmental standards are maintained, and I accept the assurances that the Minister has given.
	Our concern lies not so much with the legislation or the intentions that it will enact, but with the wide gap between Ministers' rhetoric and the speed and effectiveness of their actions. As with the Chancellor's Budget tomorrow, it will not be the words expressed from the Dispatch Box that will lead this country out of recession; it will be how effective Ministers are in delivering real help. On that, this Government's record has been at best slow, at worst inadequate and all too often incompetent. For the sake of hundreds of firms and thousands of workers, we need change and we need it now.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely trying to talk about what the Bill will achieve in terms of supply and about where guarantees paid for out of taxpayers' money are being directed. We have a worry—there was a conversation on this subject earlier in the debate—about the proportion of supply that went to smaller companies and to larger companies. My point was that the huge companies seem to be swallowing the guarantees while a relatively small amount of money goes to smaller exporters.
	In conclusion, although we welcome the Bill overall we have some reservations. We would be grateful if the Minister considered conducting a review after a year or so to allow the House to scrutinise whether the Bill is working as well as we all hope that it will.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 16686/08, French Presidency Report on European Security and Defence Policy, and No. 17104/08, Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy-Providing Security in a Changing World; welcomes the French Presidency's report and the High Commissioner's review; and supports the Government's position that UK and European security are enhanced by action co-ordinated at an EU level. —(Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Sitting suspended (Standing Order No. 20(5)).
	 On resuming—

Tony Lloyd: This is rather like old times, I suppose, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The business before the House tonight consists of two revival motions, and I know that you would take a dim view were I to stray beyond the arguments in favour of or, indeed, against revival. The debate is clearly narrow, and I hope that, on that basis, it can be short and succinct.
	It is worth reminding the House that the revival of this type of private Bill has been common practice for long periods, and I am told that opposition to revival motions is relatively unusual in the annals of the House. In that context, and given that the Bills that received a Second Reading on 29 October 2008 passed that stage so recently, and that the other Bills that we will discuss did not have the chance of being given a Second Reading even though there was lengthy debate, I want to establish that, after less than six months, it would be almost absurd for the House to refuse the revival motion.
	In that spirit, I hope that I can say confidently to the Chamber that the revival ought to go ahead. It is up to those who oppose it to put, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, their narrow and brief case as to why it should not.

Tony Lloyd: For the record, the Durham university study does not show that. For example, it said that, even for a sceptical study, it was clear that there were circumstances in which such legislation would be important to certain local areas. I speak from the point of view of Manchester, but I am sure that my colleagues from Leeds and Nottingham, who are alongside me, and those from Canterbury, Reading and Bournemouth, who are also present, share the same sentiments in respect of their own localities. That is an important point. In any case, the hon. Gentleman's argument about detail and the study's merits, while fascinating and worthy of debate, would be better conducted when those Bills that have received a Second Reading move into Committee. Indeed, with your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if we can secure the revival motion for those Bills that have not yet had a Second Reading, we might debate the merits of the Durham study during their Second Readings, too.
	In that spirit, I hope the whole House will accept that a revival is desirable. It is a matter of only months since the Bills were debated, and it was clear at the time that, barring a small fringe, a majority of the House massively supported them. It would be contemptuous of the House not to accept the spirit and, indeed, the letter of the revival. In that context, I support the first and, by reference, second motions, on the private business which appear on the Order Paper tonight.

Christopher Chope: I welcome this debate because it should give the promoters of these Bills the opportunity to show cause as to why they should have leave to proceed with them in the current Session. The provisions of Standing Order No. 188B, which relates to the revival of Bills, make it clear that there is no right to have a Bill revived and that it is a matter of discretion for the House. It is therefore relevant to look at the history of the Manchester City Council Bill and the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, which goes back to 22 January 2007, when they were originally introduced into the other place.
	Since then, much has happened that renders the Bills, particularly in so far as they relate to pedlars, no longer appropriate. I have particular reason to be concerned about clause 5 of each Bill. A Select Committee in the other place scrutinised the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill in detail in 2007. One of its conclusions was that it had
	"strong reservations about the use of piecemeal private legislation to remedy perceived problems in national legislation."
	The justification given by the promoters for continuing to proceed with the Bills was that nothing was happening through national legislation and that therefore local solutions were needed.
	However, the caravan has moved on. As a result of pressure from both sides of the House, the Government agreed last summer to commission research from Durham university on the application and perception of local authority controls and pedlar legislation. I opposed the Second Readings of these two Bills—because, among other reasons, I regarded them as premature. I argued that we should await the publication of the Durham university report. For the same reason, I objected to the Bills' being carried over into this Session. The Government provided no time to debate those carry-over motions before Prorogation last November. That, in turn, resulted in the promoters seeking the indulgence of the House to allow them to revive the Bills in this Session.
	I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd): the two Bills that we are considering both received a Second Reading in the House. However, they received it before the Durham university report had been published. I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had the chance to look at the report, but I should say that it extends to 97 pages and, in my submission, represents an important and timely contribution to the debate on these Bills.
	The report was published by the Government earlier this year and because of its findings I had expected the hon. Member for Manchester, Central— [Interruption.] He is not paying attention to the debate at the moment. I had expected the hon. Gentleman to have a much more contrite mindset about the alleged justification for including clause 5 in his Bill. I shall expand on this in connection with the other Bills, but I should tell him that I have had discussions with two of the local authorities concerned in this private legislation—those discussions continued today—and I have to report their willingness to be much more receptive to the clear evidence of the Durham university study. It is a matter of regret to me that in his short introduction to tonight's proceedings, he did not refer to that important report. Among other things, the report draws attention to the fact that there have been only five convictions in the whole of Manchester in the period 2002-06—hardly indicative, one might think, of a really serious issue that needs to be addressed by this House, and has so far been addressed at considerable length.

Greg Knight: While of course accepting that what has been said from the Chair is correct—and is, indeed, always correct—is it not the case that when deciding whether one should give consent to carry over a Bill, the question whether there is still a need for the provision must be relevant to making that decision?

Christopher Chope: I do not think that anybody is ruling out the possibility that there could be a vote on this issue, and then we could find out the view of the House. However, it is a pretty novel proposition that we should not have any debate in this House about the motions that are before us. I happen to think that it is a pity that there was so little debate on the previous business this afternoon that the sitting had to be suspended for more than two hours, at a time when the way in which we conduct ourselves is very much in the public eye, but that is another issue and I will not go down that route.
	One of the major findings of the Durham university report was:
	"The scale of pedlary in Great Britain is relatively modest, with an estimated 3,000-4,500 pedlars being granted certificates to trade by police forces. There is little evidence that certificated pedlars present problems in city centres, nor are they generally in direct competition with shops or street traders. Indeed, consumers valued their presence in town centres and regarded buying from pedlars as a positive experience."
	That is a direct quotation. In trying to find out the attitude of ordinary members of the public towards pedlars, the report's producers commissioned research in two city centres. One was Edinburgh and the other was actually Manchester. There is a detailed set of findings in the Durham university report on the views of the public in Manchester, which are that there is no great problem with pedlars. The public think that pedlars add to the character of the neighbourhood and they enjoy using their services. Of course, we have made the point before that it is not compulsory to use their services, but the public enjoy their availability and recognise that they make a major contribution to the Manchester's entrepreneurial flair, which has national renown.
	The evidence in the Government's report is completely at odds with many of the assertions that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central made when he introduced the Bills on Second Reading. In my submission, the fact that the promoters' assertions have been found wanting in the independent report is relevant in deciding tonight whether the Bills should be allowed to be revived in this Session, notwithstanding the fact that we are already halfway through it.
	A further finding of the Durham report, which echoes the speeches that several of us made during the Second Reading debates, is that the problem is illegal street trading rather than the activities of genuine pedlars. That point was made a lot, but the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), whom I am delighted to see in his place, and others disputed it hotly. However, we now have objective evidence from the Durham university study that shows that the evidence that local authorities submitted confounded illegal street trading with the activities of genuine pedlars. According to the report, the promoters of the Bills and their supporters showed confusion about the different identities of pedlars, illegal traders and rogues, just as the Durham university researchers found that local authorities generally had done.

Christopher Chope: I referred to the Bills' promoters, but obviously my hon. Friend promotes the Bill about Canterbury—a city council—which is the subject of the second debate tonight. Mr. Deputy Speaker has already made it clear that he does not believe that it is appropriate to go into the merits of the Bills. However, to give my hon. Friend a summary response, I commend the Durham university report to him. I do not know whether he has read it, but it is available on the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website. I am delighted that my diligent hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has not only read and digested it, but has a copy of it in the Chamber. If my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) reads it in full, he will realise that there is a clear answer to the problem that he has raised, and that the findings are not in accord with the prejudices that he brings to the debate, doubtless based on his experiences in Canterbury. However, in the light of the objective report, I do not believe that those experiences warrant the proposed legislation.

Christopher Chope: I will not answer my hon. Friend's question directly, but simply refer him to the report because I do not want to consider the merits of the Bills. I want to consider carry-over, which is the subject of the motion. I appreciate that my hon. Friend may mischievously be trying to tempt me into a conflict with the Chair about the procedures, but I shall not be drawn into that. The merits of the Bills have been tackled—I commend the Durham university report to my hon. Friend.
	However, I ask my hon. Friend and the other promoters what their response has been to the findings, which came as a relief to many pedlars, but were a surprise to several people who had been seduced into believing that there was a problem that primary legislation needed to address.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For the guidance of the House, it is fairly plain that we have a motion before us for carry over. It is the merits of that motion that the House is now obliged to consider, rather than the motivation that might lie behind it. The motion is here and it is being debated. I suggest that that is what we strictly do.

Christopher Chope: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, the motion is for a revival rather than for carry over, because the carry-over motion was objected to before Prorogation.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. One of the questions that we must consider in deciding whether we wish to revive the Bills this evening is whether they have been so discredited as a result of the latest findings and so upstaged by the Government's announcements to which I have referred that they are now almost redundant and will not make any progress.
	I have now come across page 70 of the Durham university report, which states:
	"The evidence for private acts should however be convincing, both in terms of the evidence of a problem, as well as the solutions having the desired effects. Local authorities hoping to adopt legislation...should provide a strong case to justify their adoption."
	That is where the promoters of these two Bills have fallen down: perhaps before the publication of the Durham university report, we would have thought that there was not such a stringent test; now that the report has come out, I think most fair-minded people would say that the test is reasonable. We obviously have to take into account the use of the House's time, the burden placed on those participating in Committee and whether that Committee stage will be worthwhile, having regard to the constraints to which I have already drawn attention and the possibility that when the matter gets to Report, the Government might seek major amendments to the Bills—with or without the support of Opposition Members and others who are concerned about ensuring the future of pedlary in this country. I have been unable to tease out from the promoters of the Bills their response to the Durham university report. In my submission, it is not an academic matter; it goes to the heart of whether or not these Bills should be revived.
	I also want to draw attention to the fact that if the promoters were, in the light of the Durham university report, prepared to withdraw clause 5 from each Bill, thereby disapplying the application of the Bills to pedlars, I am sure that those who have been concerned about these Bills would be happy to respond positively. To go back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), it would mean that these Bills could go through very quickly because there would effectively be no opposition to them. What could be more reasonable and sensible than that? To adopt what is tantamount to a heads-in-the-sand approach should give us all great cause for concern, not least because such stubbornness will inevitably result in an elongation of proceedings.
	We have established that there is a difference of view between the different promoters of these different Bills; up to now they have been treated as if they were a block of Bills, but we have now found that two councils are willing to admit to substantial amendments in respect of clause 5, but the other four councils are not willing to do that. That is a new development since the last debate on these matters and is a relevant factor in considering whether it is appropriate to allow these Bills to be carried over.

Christopher Chope: Yes, I am. I met representatives from Leeds city council and from Reading borough council today, and on a previous occasion, I met representatives from Leeds city council. Both those councils—in fairness to them, they have a different view about their own needs compared with their colleagues' needs—recognise that their priorities can be satisfied without penalising pedlars in a way that causes a great deal of concern to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to other Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) anticipates what I am about to say. Canterbury has already been raised; Reading has now been raised; but the motion concerns Manchester and Bournemouth. I hope that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) will not think that I am trying to encourage the hon. Gentleman to go down the wrong route. I am sure that he knows not to do so.
	While I am on my feet, let me say this. I think that it is a question of balance. It is quite difficult to maintain an equitable distinction between the content, or the merits, of the Bills and reasons why a revival motion should or should not be accepted. The fact of the report to which the hon. Member for Christchurch has referred is an argument in question. To give too much detail about that report would, I think, tilt the balance unfairly.

John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Durham study observes that circumstances will vary considerably from borough to borough, and, rather than recommending national legislation covering the whole area, states that it will be up to individual boroughs to present and justify its own proposals? Does he not agree that, in the case of the two Bills whose revival we are now considering, the justification process could take place equally appropriately during a Committee or a Report stage? In fairness, if my hon. Friend wants the debate, he should allow it to take place at those times.
	My hon. Friend said that there was not a great deal of evidence of demand because there had been only five convictions in Manchester and only three in the Dorset area. Given that he is from Dorset, discussions with the Dorset constabulary will have left him in no doubt that they find it very difficult to secure convictions without devoting a huge quantity of police time to this matter. He will also know that we experience a good deal of rather more serious crime in the area. It is possible that the constabulary devote their resources to dealing with that rather than to convicting pedlars.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Obviously, I have not been able to do my own direct research on this matter.  [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) sounds doubtful about that, but I assure him that that is the correct state of play. I have before me paragraph 213 of the Durham university report. I shall not quote all of it, but it says:
	"The direct effects of private acts are difficult to assess, in terms of being able to eliminate illegal street traders. With regard to the Acts introduced in 2006 (Leicester, Liverpool and Maidstone), the effects may not be fully understood for some time. One of their most obvious impacts is that genuine pedlars remove themselves from areas where they must trade from door-to-door or face possible criminalisation."
	So one might say that the jury is still out on that. However, this issue is dealt with in a lot more detail than my summary of it here.

Philip Davies: As the jury is still out and the report says that we still do not really know what the effect has been, is that not even more of a reason why these Bills should not be revived now and we should wait until further consideration has been given to the impacts of previous ones?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is noted for his contrariness on such occasions, and it is important that that point should be put on the record—it does not appear that anyone else will do so. My response would be that the relatively small fees associated with the placing of a private Bill in Parliament are modest compared with the costs of giving evidence and providing support during the Committee stage in respect of parts of the Bill that subsequently come to be regarded as redundant or incapable of achieving enactment. My right hon. Friend's background and knowledge as a distinguished lawyer show that he is without self-interest in these matters. He is always as keen to minimise costs to members of the public as he used to be to his clients.
	In summary, I have some strong reservations about the merits of reviving the Bills, and I hope that I am not the only Member who has such reservations.

David Lepper: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about consultation and I am sure that he will be consulting with local authorities and local councils. Will he also give a commitment to consulting with business improvement district boards, where they exist, across the country? They take a particular view about the areas that they represent in relation to this issue.

Philip Davies: Does the Minister not understand, though, the logic of the argument? I commend the Government for what they are doing, for having commissioned the report and for carrying out extensive consultation. That is certainly to be welcomed. However, does he not understand the logic of the position that reviving the Bills would be premature, given that the Government are undertaking process that which should be welcomed by both sides of the House?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is sufficiently long in the tooth to know that I cannot tonight give commitments about legislation in the way that he would like. I recognise that there is concern about this issue across the House, and that is one of the reasons why we took the initiative to carry out the research. We want to respond to hon. Members' concerns about the need for a national response to the issue, and to make progress as quickly as possible.
	Finally, I return to the point that I was making when the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) intervened, which is that the Government would not have a problem if the revival motions were to be carried tonight.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, the genesis of these revival motions started as long ago as 22 January 2007. We had a considerable debate on this matter on Second Reading on 2 June 2008, there was a further debate on 29 October 2008, and here we are today with these revival motions. The private Bills that we are seeking to revive all do much the same thing—that is, they try to incorporate the definition in clause 3 of the Pedlars Act 1871 into schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.
	Much of the debate about the Bill does not focus on the true problem of what a pedlar is. Does he go from door to door, or occupy the same spot in a market square every day? It is a debatable point. To be totally clear, the House needs to hear again how chapter 96 of the 1871 Act defines a pedlar. Clause 3 states:
	"The term 'pedlar' means any hawker, pedlar, petty chapman, tinker, caster of metals, mender of chairs, or other person who, without any horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden, travels and trades on foot and goes from town to town or to other men's houses, carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods, wares, or merchandise, or procuring orders for goods, wares, or merchandise immediately to be delivered, or selling or offering for sale his skill in handicraft".
	It is obvious that a pedlar is very different from a street market trader, who is covered by different legislation. The legislation covering pedlars requires them to go to the local police for a certificate, which they can usually obtain for about £12 or £15, whereas a street market trader has to obtain a licence from the local authority that costs in the region of £500 to £1,000. That is a different order of cost.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend usefully draws attention to that paragraph, but somewhere else the report notes that competition is one of the causes of complaint. On the whole, the number of complaints in any local authority area is fairly low, so it seems to me that every sponsor of such a Bill—the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) has spoken in support of his Bill—has to make a crystal-clear case as to why their Bill should be revived.
	Like the Government, the Opposition have no particular view officially about whether the Bills should be revived. I have no problem if they are revived; if the House in its wisdom votes in favour of their revival and they go into Committee, I have no problem with that. Even if they go through Committee, pass their other stages and are enacted I shall have no problem with it. However, when we discussed the matter on 12 June 2008 I argued from the Opposition Benches that we should have a national study. We now have such a study and on the whole it concludes that there are special circumstances in each local authority area. On the whole, contrary to what I argued on 12 June 2008, the Durham report seems to make it clear that each local case should be taken on its merits, although whether that will continue to be the prevailing view I do not know.
	As to whether the Bills should be revived, I was delighted to hear from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that we shall have new guidance from his Department when it has taken evidence. That is really important. Evidence is the key to the whole matter. I repeat even more strongly that it is up to each local authority area that brings forward a Bill to produce evidence of why it needs those powers. All too often in this country—in this place, if nowhere else—we tend to rush into legislation because there is a perceived problem. There may indeed be a small actual problem, but one has to consider whether it is sufficient to warrant a change in legislation.
	There is no doubt that a change in legislation would make the act of peddling a very different craft—if we can call it that—from what it is at present, so I was pleased to hear that the Government have embarked on gathering evidence from any interested party. Once they have the evidence they will produce guidance, which will run along some of the useful lines to which the Durham report alludes.
	We need better methods of enforcement and of issuing certificates. The certificates need to be clear; they need to include a photograph and to be held on a national database. They should be enforceable across the country, so that a pedlar moving from Manchester to Canterbury to Bournemouth can be apprehended and prosecuted if he is misbehaving. We want clear laws that are easily interpreted and operated, so I was delighted to hear about the guidance.
	I was delighted to hear that the whole licensing regime will be considered. At present, the local police force issues the licence; in fact, it may not be the local police force, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Central said. That police force would be relying only on Criminal Records Bureau information, not even local knowledge of the person and whether they are a true and fit person to hold such a certificate. We need to tighten up that procedure.

Lorely Burt: The question before us tonight is whether the Bills should be allowed to be revived. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) says no; he says that the Durham report has discredited the provisions of the Bills. He says that the Government will produce their own report over the summer. However, there is to be a free vote; the Government have said that they will not oppose the motion. The question tonight is really whether the will of the House should be observed, and whether a small number of MPs should be allowed to hold up the progress that will apparently—we will find out—start to be made. If there are flaws in the Bills, why not let them make progress? Why not allow the hon. Gentleman to use his undoubted extensive knowledge in Committee, where he can help to iron out the flaws that he perceives?
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who speaks for the Conservatives, has said that many local authorities have already got their private Bill through the House. It seems inequitable for us to try to halt the process now. The train is in motion, but suddenly we are having to put the brakes on. That means that some local authorities can implement their private legislation, but some will not be able to do so. If whether the Bills can make progress is at the discretion of the House, we should let the House divide and decide. Councils are suffering because of the problems caused by pedlars. Of course they want to serve the best interests of their constituents.
	We have heard from the Minister that, if the Bills are not revived and the process does not go through, the Government have agreed to carry out a consultation. My plea to them, on behalf of local authorities that have not introduced Bills, is that they should bring forward a national framework which local authorities can adopt through a byelaw at their own discretion. My colleagues and I will support the progress of the revival motions tonight.

Christopher Chope: I meant to indicate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as nobody representing any of the promoters of these Bills had risen to speak, I thought it important that I should do so in order to ask some questions. I hope that the promoters and their representatives will not feel too modest about being prepared to share with a wider public the reasons why they think that their Bills should be revived.
	The arguments in relation to these four Bills are slightly different from those relating to the two that we discussed earlier—the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill and the Manchester City Council Bill. Although they are all included in one motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that one of them, namely the Canterbury City Council Bill, has already received a Second Reading and is therefore, it might be argued, in a category more similar to the other two Bills. On the other hand, one might say that during that previous debate there was unfinished business between my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and me, and that there would be an opportunity to develop the arguments as to why the situation in Canterbury warrants a revival. The difference between the Canterbury Bill and the Manchester and Bournemouth Bills is that the Canterbury Bill has not yet been to the other place and is therefore on a slower time scale than the other two. Therefore, the arguments that were deployed in the previous debate for giving the promoters a chance to rethink their strategy in light of the Durham university report weigh more strongly against the case for Canterbury's revival than in respect of Manchester and Bournemouth.
	As regards the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) about the relative costs of going back to square one if the promised Government initiatives in the form of legislation or guidance are not forthcoming, those cost penalties will be less in the case of Canterbury because the proceedings have reached a lesser stage than in the case of Manchester and Bournemouth. However, the other three Bills that we are considering have not yet received their Second Reading.
	When I examined the guidance in relation to the revival of Bills, I found a statement—I think it is in the private Bill procedure—suggesting that if a Bill had not made any progress at all during a Session of Parliament, the House would be reluctant to allow it to be revived in a subsequent Session or carried over from one Session to another. Of course, the Nottingham City Council Bill, the Leeds City Council Bill and the Reading Borough Council Bill did not receive a Second Reading in the last Session, so they are completely de novo and would need a Second Reading in this Session. The question one asks is why, if they did not make any progress in the last Session, they should be allowed to be revived at this stage.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my point, which I am getting around to raising with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the two councils—Reading and Leeds—are prepared to compromise, to respond to public opinion, as reflected in the Durham university report, and to council tax payers' concerns about possible abortive costs incurred, and to consider amending clause 5 of the respective Bills, should not they be given preferential treatment, compared with councils that still have their heads in the sand, believing that they can carry on regardless, as though the Durham study had never been conducted, there were no findings in its 90-odd pages and no issues arose from it? The Minister said in the previous debate that the Government acknowledge that the study raised issues which merit their attention and will be subject to consultation.
	The question that I would like to put—perhaps I could put it formally in a point of order—is this. Is there any scope for the revival of the Reading Borough Council Bill and the Leeds City Council Bill to be considered in separate votes from those on the other two Bills, in respect of which there are different considerations?

Martin Salter: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that I am obliged to point out the complete nonsense of his seeking to impugn the motives of Reading borough council? The council's willingness to be flexible is not based on 90 or 19 pages of the Durham university report, but on a problem on the streets of Reading, which is that of pedlars fraudulently acting as stallholders. Does he agree that it is not for Reading borough council to ascribe motives to Nottingham, Canterbury, Leeds or any other authority, but to argue its case, and that the issues are not related?

Christopher Chope: I absolutely agree with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Basically, I have a bit of a split personality on this issue because I am rather sympathetic to the case for reviving the Leeds City Council Bill on account of that council's compromising attitude; and I have a similar benevolence towards the Reading Borough Council Bill revival motion. I am much less enthusiastic, however, about the Nottingham City Council Bill, which has not yet received its Second Reading—notwithstanding the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, whose case, I suspect, falls between those two extremes.

Peter Bone: This is a new process to me and while I am sure, of course, that the procedures before us are correct, I am rather surprised that four Bills have been lumped together. For two of the councils, I would be voting one way, but for the other two I would be voting the other way. I would thus be very grateful for my hon. Friend's advice about which way he believes we should go.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Some of us have been involved in extensive debates on these Bills. The Second Reading debates on the Manchester City Council and Bournemouth Borough Council Bills took place in June last year, were adjourned, and were resumed in October. Those of us who were involved in those debates may like to take some credit for the fact that our actions deterred a lot of the other councils, to which my hon. Friend refers, from bringing forward their private Bills, no doubt much to the relief of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Private Bill Office, because they wanted to reflect on what was happening, not least in terms of the Durham university report, the response of this House to that report, and now the Government response. Therefore, my hon. Friend's point is important.
	We are concerned about piecemeal legislation making the situation unsatisfactory for the genuine pedlar, who would not know whether different rules will apply in different parts of the country if different regimes operate in different places. Concern has also been expressed about the impact on adjoining boroughs and local authority areas, and there is a general desire to have some common practice again in the way in which the police licence pedlars so that those licences apply throughout the country. At present, each individual police force is responsible for licensing shotguns that can then be used anywhere in the country, but they have a common system for doing that, and I think there is a lot to be said for having a similarly common system for the licensing of pedlars.
	I hope there will be a response from the promoters of some of these Bills that will help steer us past this difficult dilemma to do with whether or not we should show our sympathy for Reading and Leeds by saying we should either abstain or support the revival motion, or whether we should display our displeasure at Nottingham and therefore say we should oppose the revival motion. The jury will be out on that, but I hope that we will get some responses to help us reach a conclusion.

Martin Salter: I am very happy to help steer the House, and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), through the intricacies of this argument, although I doubt very much whether any of the words I choose to utter will steer him into the same Division Lobby as me a little later.
	I have some respect for academic studies, but what motivates me is what the police, traders and the public in my town of Reading say to me, not what some professor chooses to write about a problem—they may or may not have a different perception from the ivory tower of an academic institution. What I know is that a significant police operation took place in Reading. It was called Operation Ontology and it was an operation with the council and the Border and Immigration Agency police command team. It targeted immigration offending and criminality by pedlars in Reading town centre. The operation was conducted by local Thames Valley police officers, supported by the neighbourhood policing team and conducted after consultation with Reading borough council licensing department. The purpose of the operation—this is yet another reason for supporting the Bill—was to identify all the pedlars operating in the town centre of Reading during the period of the operation and where necessary to record details, to locate and identify any immigration offenders among the pedlars, to arrest suspected immigration offenders to be dealt with by BIA personnel, and to minimise the impact of this operation on members of the public, the officers themselves and the subjects themselves.
	It is worth reporting that the briefing that elected representatives have been sent by Thames Valley police said that during the operation 10 pedlars were encountered selling a variety of goods and that the stalls from which many of the pedlars were selling items did not lend themselves to being mobile as each time they were pushed the merchandise displayed would fall from the stall on to the ground. This matter was alluded to by not only the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), but the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). In many cases these are not pedlars under the definition of the 1871 Act and the Bills merely seek to bring a piece of legislation that was framed in 1871 up to date to reflect modern circumstances and modern pressures.
	It is quite clear that in my town, Reading—I suspect that this is the case in Leeds and elsewhere too—the pedlar certificate has become a £12.50 flag of convenience that is causing tremendous resentment among stall holders, who are paying between £500 and £1,000 for a similar facility. I find it strange that hon. Members from the party that supports business and enterprise appear to be setting themselves against ensuring fair competition and an even playing field. I find it even more surprising that arguments are coming from those on the Conservative Benches against the Cameronian notion of localism; we appear to be hearing arguments for the nationalisation of the regulation of pedlars. That runs contrary to the thrust of the new modern Conservatives and it is frankly illogical, and I find it strange that the Conservative Front-Bench team has not sought to make that point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to mislead or, rather, misrepresent—I withdraw the word "mislead"—what I have said on behalf of the Opposition. I did raise the issue of competition and the difference in price between a pedlar's certificate and a street licence certificate. I also said that I think that whether these Bills are revived is a matter for the House, but this procedure is expensive for the individual councils involved and thus a better procedure would be if this matter were considered on a national basis in respect of whether guidance needs to be revised and whether, as a result of that, legislation needs to be altered. I would not wish him to misrepresent what I said.

Julian Brazier: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), although I was unhappy about his attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) who has now put the record straight.
	The most relevant aspect of the revival motion—the one thing that has changed since Second Reading—is of course the Durham report. It concedes that there are some local problems, but concludes that there is no national problem. Therefore, as a localist, I would like to see a national framework—probably requiring legislation—that councils can opt into if they wish to do so. Unfortunately, because that option is not available to councils, these four councils have been faced with two bitter options—either to do nothing about this dreadful problem or to expend a great deal of money, the amount of which has been considerably increased by the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), although he remains my hon. Friend, and a small group of other hon. Friends—

Julian Brazier: I did not think that my hon. Friend would answer my question. The hon. Member for Reading, West succinctly said that the essence of this measure is the fact that illegal street trading is carried out under the flag of convenience, as he put it, of touting. I asked my hon. Friend to explain how he could distinguish between pedlars and illegal street trading—nobody in this House wants to attack pedlars who are not involved in illegal street trading—but he said that it would be out of order to answer that point. However, it would not be out of order and, as on so many occasions, he has failed to answer my question.
	Nevertheless I will answer the question. I made it clear on Second Reading that I was happy to negotiate with my hon. Friend—I hoped that it would be in good faith—on the removal of the touting clause from the Canterbury City Council Bill, which would bring it into line with the others. I hope that it will be possible, when the House authorities consider the arrangements for Committee, for the Canterbury City Council Bill to be grouped with the other two Bills that have already received their Second Reading, because that is the only substantial difference.
	I do not wish to echo all the points that were made on Second Reading and very well tonight by the hon. Member for Reading, West, but it would be scandalous at any time for struggling honest businesses to be ruined by small numbers—or, in Canterbury's case, by relatively large numbers—of people using peddling licences to act as street traders. It is not only the legitimate street traders, paying their £800 a year, who are affected, but the shops next door, which are also being wrecked by those people. It really is extraordinarily bad news in the current recession. It is no exaggeration to say that businesses in Canterbury will go to the wall because this measure has not gone through, and that greatly saddens me. It is why I ask the House to revive the Bill. My final point is that in his remarks, my hon. Friend—

Julian Brazier: I am willing to give way once more, but each time I have tried to debate a point with my hon. Friend—including all the way through the Second Reading debate—I have found him unwilling to answer the particular problems that I have raised. I am happy to give way on the issue of expense, but before I do so let me say that he raised the question of the expense involved in the procedure. I want to remind people of the expense involved in trying to deal with pedlars who are illegally street trading. I set out in Second Reading—I will not bore you or stretch your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by doing so again—how terribly expensive it is to cope with a street trader hiding behind a peddling licence. I raised that point in discussion with my hon. Friend, and not once did he reply to my point. I hope that this time he will do so.

Christopher Chope: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. In paragraph 64 of the Durham university report, I found what I hope is a very succinct summary of my concern. It states:
	"In conjunction with these responses"
	on the issue of distinguishing between street trading and peddling,
	"it should be noted that some local authorities showed a tendency to conflate rogues, illegal street traders and pedlars into a single group, and/or use inflammatory or pejorative language in association with pedlars: 'Pedlars regard themselves as untouchable and are often quite rude if challenged'"
	and so on. They are described as
	"'hit and run merchants' who come from nowhere and disappear again into the night. They may be selling counterfeit goods"
	and so on. Such statements have been made too often in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it is wrong to conflate the street trader, the lawful pedlar and the rogue.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend has repeated his allegation again, so it is clearly on the record twice. To establish his point, he needs to show a point where one of the promoters of the Bills has conflated the two things. There is no point in going back to the Durham report for it. The plain fact is that all the way through these proceedings the MPs supporting the promoters of these Bills have sought to explain that nobody wants to attack genuine pedlars—people who go from place to place, selling their wares. He has accused us again of conflation, and the record will show that, but the problem is pedlars who act as illegal street traders and can hide behind their pedlars' licences. The kind of inflammatory statement that he quoted from the Durham report may well be dug out in relation to some councils, but I have heard nobody in the various debates—I have been here for them all, except for part of the last one—who has conflated the two groups in the House in the way that he suggests.
	I have spoken for longer than I intended. The plain fact is that legitimate businesses will go to the wall because of the activities of such people and I urge the House to allow all four of these Bills, and not just the Canterbury City Council Bill, to be carried over.

John Heppell: I shall be very brief. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to the fact that the sponsors are not speaking for these Bills. May I make the point, so that it is on the record, that all the Nottingham MPs are here tonight to vote for the Nottingham City Council Bill and the other Bills covered by the motion? We have not spoken because the hon. Gentleman's machinations have meant, as we know, that to speak could do harm to the Bill.
	I shall say no more and hope that other Members will be as brief as I have been. The Bill was a good Bill when it started. The machinations of the hon. Member for Christchurch have not made it a bad Bill. The will of the House is that the Bill should be passed and I hope that it will be passed, along with the other three Bills.

Support for Mutual Societies

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am delighted to have the opportunity in an Adjournment debate to talk about Mr. Paul Buchanan. This is a short debate with a short title, but I am here to tell the House of some extraordinary events in the life of an elected councillor for the county of Somerset.
	Mr. Buchanan is not a constituent of mine; nor, by any stretch of the imagination, is he is a supporter of my party. He is a Liberal Democrat, so we ought to be classified as sworn political enemies. However, sometimes there are bigger things in life than party loyalty, and when a man is made to suffer without good reason and has no right of redress, it matters not a jot what his party loyalties may be.
	I became interested in the case of Paul Buchanan partly because his own political leadership disowned him. It puzzled me that a man should have a grievance that nobody was prepared to hear. Even his local Member of Parliament refused to take up the case. I am pleased to say that this House has a long and proud tradition of defending the weak and standing up for those who have no voice. Parliament, after all, is supposed to be the highest court in the land.
	Tonight I bring before the House the strange case of Paul Buchanan. His world has been turned upside down, his career prospects have been badly damaged, his political ambitions in local government have been ruined and his good name has been rubbished, all because of the actions of one highly placed, highly paid and quite unscrupulous public official—the chief executive of Somerset county council, Mr. Alan Jones. This is a true story. Mr. Jones is guilty of deliberate deceit and victimisation. He deliberately set out to destroy Paul Buchanan. The tactics that Jones used make Damian McBride look like an angel.
	I have the evidence right here. To his credit, Mr. Buchanan has at no time broken any confidences to me. All my information has come from available transcripts which were deemed by the Adjudication Panel for England to be "in the public domain". The documents that I have collected were part of recent hearings against Paul Buchanan. I attended one of the proceedings.
	The evidence against Alan Jones is damning. On 4 April 2007 Alan Jones composed a six-page letter of complaint about Paul Buchanan and sent it to the Standards Board for England. At that time Mr. Buchanan was deputy leader of his party and hoped to be the new leader. Without the intervention of the chief executive, he would probably have succeeded, but with a very poisoned pen Jones totally undermined him.
	The letter is a bizarre piece of writing. Jones attempts to play the reasonable father-figure, describing Mr. Buchanan as "young, able and enthusiastic". Then the venom starts to flow. Paul Buchanan is accused of secretiveness, undermining staff, aggression, threatening behaviour, rudeness, intimidation, anger, disrespect, fraud, sexism, racism, homophobia, and abuse of his office as an elected councillor. There is barely concealed hatred of the man in every sentence. It is the ultimate hatchet job. Indeed, if there was a prize for the black arts, Alan Jones would win it, hands down.
	Jones did not want the Standards Board to investigate. He wanted an instant political execution. He asked for Buchanan to be suspended there and then. I can only hazard a guess at the reaction when his letter was received. The Standards Board would have been forgiven for thinking that Paul Buchanan was an unstable nutcase with homicidal tendencies. In fact, the really unstable character was the one who made the complaint—Somerset county council's most senior officer. Unfortunately, the Standards Board does not investigate complaints against officers; there is a gaping hole in the justice system. It is manifestly unfair that no legal process has yet been created by which officers can be independently investigated—unless, that is, they commit actual crimes. I invite the Minister to comment on that vital general point when he responds, and to see whether he can do anything to help.
	The Standards Board had very few options. It was obliged to launch a full-blown inquiry into Mr. Buchanan, even if it doubted the wild complaints about him that Alan Jones had brought. The board went about its task relentlessly for two years. It conducted literally hundreds of interviews and produced thousands of pages of transcripts. When it rejected Alan Jones's first batch of complaints, Jones wasted no additional time disputing its findings. I sympathise a little with the Standards Board; it was dealing with a deranged obsessive. The first investigator, or ethical standards officer, as the board calls them, retired halfway through the tortuous process—probably exhausted. Lawyers came and went, and it dragged on. Heaven only knows what it cost—and the result? Eventually, 16 of the original complaints were rejected completely and four others were referred to a higher court—the Adjudication Panel. That meant more delay and more uncertainty for Paul Buchanan.
	The panel, with a bench of barristers in tow, finally met in Somerset over recent weeks. Key witnesses were called to give evidence again—remarkably few, actually, because most did not want to have anything to do with it. The panel had access to all the original documentation and threw out three more complaints. One tiny charge was upheld. Paul Buchanan had been heard swearing under his breath. He was deemed to have been a little careless and ticked off with a censure—the mildest possible sanction. That is mad. Frankly, after two years in limbo, my language would have been extremely fruity and very loud indeed.
	My fascination with the case, however, is with what really lies behind it. Why on earth did a chief executive, earning £160,000 a year, with 17,000 staff and huge responsibilities go to so much trouble to make complaints about a young, ambitious councillor? Mr. Jones's explanation was beyond belief. He said that Mr. Buchanan's behaviour was
	"capable of damaging the council's continued improvement and external reputation."
	That statement would stack up only if the charges against him were proved, but they were not. Paul Buchanan has been acquitted of everything serious. Let us remember the allegations: secretiveness, undermining staff, aggression, threatening behaviour, rudeness, intimidation, anger, disrespect, fraud, sexism, racism, homophobia—and, I suspect, leaving the toilet seat up.
	It is not credible that Alan Jones made an innocent mistake in complaining about Buchanan. Mr. Jones's charges were too specific, and they were backed up with too much detail and too much personal bile. It was a wholly personal vendetta. It is open to anyone—fellow councillors, council employees and ordinary members of the public—to make complaints to the Standards Board, but Jones extracted statements from junior staff who were perhaps too scared to go against the boss.
	So, why on earth did Jones want to get Buchanan? And, what had Buchanan got on Jones? I am sorry if it sounds conspiratorial, but there is a big hint of conspiracy in all this. Mr Buchanan unfortunately knew too much for his own good. Back in 2005 there was gossip about Alan Jones having an affair with a member of staff called Jenny Hastings. Everybody at county hall knew about it; it was no secret. What Buchanan did not know, however, was that when the affair came to an end, Ms Hastings made very serious allegations of harassment against Alan Jones.
	Obviously, engaging in such harassment is a sackable offence. The allegations had to be dealt with by a confidential panel of elected members, including Councillor Cathy Bakewell, the lady who led the council at the time. The panel did not reach a quick conclusion; everything was delayed because Mrs. Bakewell was taken seriously ill halfway through. These things happen. Paul Buchanan was then deputised to take on many of her responsibilities, but Cathy Bakewell never told him about the Alan Jones inquiry. Alan Jones, however, did tell him—and in lurid detail. Perhaps he wanted to curry favour with the man most likely to be the next leader of the county council. Until that moment, Paul Buchanan was unaware of any allegations and did not know either about the confidential panel; he was not even on it. Jones pleaded with Buchanan to help. Buchanan rightly told Jones that he could not. Big mistake: Alan Jones has a long memory and, as we will see, bears grudges.
	By the time Councillor Cathy Bakewell returned to work, it was deemed too dangerous to punish Jones by sacking him. At that time, Jenny Hastings was threatening an industrial tribunal—a very public way of exposing the antics of her erstwhile lover. Meanwhile, the Audit Commission was due to inspect the council. There is nothing like a four-star sex scandal to scupper a council's chances of an "excellent" four-star rating. Behind closed doors and with the help of ACAS, a deal was sealed to buy off Ms Hastings. It cost £140,000 of taxpayers' money—slightly less than Alan Jones's annual salary. Somerset county council thought that it had got everyone involved to sign a confidentiality agreement, but it carelessly left at least one person off the list, which is why I know how much she was paid. There were also some very large extra payments. In the next couple of years, millions of pounds were spent on mysterious "staff restructuring" at Somerset county council. Did any of that money help buy the silence of those on the inside who knew the gory details? Were those in the know given golden goodbyes when they retired?
	Life at the county council limped on, however. Paul Buchanan continued as deputy leader, taking a particular interest in two projects close to Alan Jones's heart. Both men wanted Somerset to be transformed into a unitary authority, taking responsibility from the five existing district councils. In my opinion, it was a mad idea, but Mr. Buchanan is a Liberal Democrat, so we have to allow for a certain degree of woolly-headed lunacy. Both Buchanan and Jones also wanted to see improvements in how services were delivered. So, in a peculiar fashion, Jones and Buchanan looked like peas in a pod. Jones was the go-getting chief executive, albeit with a weakness for women; Buchanan was business-savvy and energetic. What a team! Except that the go-getting chief executive much preferred compliant pussycat politicians who sit quietly in the corner and purr when officers tell them what to do. Mr. Buchanan had a failing: he was apt to ask too many questions. Furthermore, he came equipped with a brain.
	The Minister may know of my close interest in the development and malfunction of a joint venture company involving Somerset county council, Avon and Somerset police and IBM.

Sadiq Khan: It is right that I should not be able to intervene in individual cases, as that guarantees the impartiality of the conduct regime and investigation process. Although I am happy to discuss the work of the Standards Board for England and the Adjudication Panel in general terms, I will not comment on or engage in debate about any specific ongoing case.
	As the debate's title suggests and as the hon. Gentleman outlined, the case concerns Councillor Paul Buchanan, a former deputy leader of Somerset county council, but given that the adjudication panel is due to convene shortly to determine the outcome of several outstanding allegations, I will not comment on it. However, I should like to address briefly the conduct regime and the two points that the hon. Gentleman raised with which I can deal specifically later in my short speech.
	In this country, we have naturally high standards of probity, accountability and objectivity—expectations of behaviour that demand a serious, reasonable, robust and fair conduct regime. It must be fair to the public and to all in public life. That applies equally to those elected to local authorities and to Members of Parliament. It is worth remembering that the conduct regime was introduced in the Local Government Act 2000 to promote high standards of ethical behaviour by local authority members. It gave a clear ethical framework for local authority members to work within, and made clear to the electorate the standards of behaviour that they could expect from those whom they voted into office.
	In 2007, a revised model code of conduct for local authority members was issued, which was yet clearer, simpler and more proportionate. It removed barriers to members' ability to speak up for those they represent, for example, on planning and licensing issues, and has been well received by local government. All local authorities have followed it in their own codes, by which their members must abide.
	In May 2008, the Government fulfilled their White Paper commitment, as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to introduce a more locally based conduct regime for members and co-opted members of local authorities in England. Devolving responsibility for conduct issues to local authorities provides them with greater ownership of the conduct regime and local conduct issues, and boosts their role in promoting and maintaining a culture of high standards of behaviour. That belief is shared throughout the local government world.
	The Standards Board for England, which until that point had been responsible for investigating alleged breaches of the code of conduct, has assumed its new role as the strategic regulator of local authority standards committees, responsible for monitoring their performance and issuing guidance on the conduct regime. The Standards Board continues to investigate the most serious allegations of misconduct.
	Let us be clear: the regime accords with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, including the recommendation to establish a more locally based decision-making regime for investigating and determining all but the most serious misconduct allegations, but with the Standards Board at the centre of the revised regime with a new strategic, regulatory role to ensure consistency.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to serious allegations. It is a sad fact of political life that disagreement about issues can occasionally spill out of the correct channels for resolution and take on the form of remarks or accusations that suggest personal enmity. It is good to hear forthright views expressed vigorously—healthy debate is good for a healthy democracy and ensures that issues are thoroughly and publicly examined. That is true, whether in the Chamber, a council meeting or a parish hall. To some extent, we can also expect public figures to comment on issues in a private capacity—we are familiar with examples of that from our national and local media. For example, councillors with opposing views clearly express their opinions in the letters column of local newspapers.
	As modern media have developed, so have the great opportunities that they afford for communication; indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to his website. That is one of the reasons why my Department recently consulted on proposed changes to the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity. We want to remove barriers to communication between councillors and those whom they serve, by allowing, for instance, the local authority to host a councillor's blog. However, with that freedom comes responsibility. There is no place in political debate for making hurtful, potentially damaging and unfounded accusations. That is why we take bringing the office of a councillor into disrepute so seriously and why doing so constitutes a breach of the local authority members' code of conduct.
	The other point that the hon. Gentleman made was about using the conduct regime as a political weapon. I am not insensitive in this context to the allegation that unscrupulous individuals may consider that the conduct regime can be used maliciously as a political weapon. I am conscious of that threat, but when we consider steps to halt what some might consider to be obviously false allegations intended to waste time and resources, we must take great care to ensure that in so doing we do not gag legitimate allegations.
	Before the new regime, it was for the Standards Board for England to assess, and if necessary investigate, the some 3,500 allegations made about the behaviour of councillors every year. Under the devolved regime, the Standards Board investigates only the most serious allegations. One of the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman was about delay. Indeed, the facts of the delay are a source of serious concern. The Standards Board has a target of completing 90 per cent. of its cases within six months; he mentioned a period of two years and explained why there had been unfortunate problems in the case. The 90 per cent. target is a challenging target, but he will be interested to know that last year the Standards Board did not just meet it, but exceeded it, completing 96 per cent. of cases on target.
	I realise that it can be trying for those who are subject to an allegation that takes some time to investigate and resolve. Investigations can become protracted for a number of reasons. Some cases are complex and require the collection of evidence from a number of witnesses. In addition, fresh evidence may come to light during the investigative process. We must also consider the fact that, unfortunately, the investigation can be protracted owing to malicious behaviour on the part of the subject or subjects of the allegation, or perhaps others who have reason to fear its outcome.
	Let me turn to the issue of misconduct. The Adjudication Panel for England, the Standards Board for England and the standards committees of local authorities are all part of a conduct regime underpinned by the local authority members' code of conduct. The code makes it clear to councillors and their communities what might constitute a personal or a prejudicial interest, for example, and it addresses issues such as gifts and hospitality, which are clearly not relevant to this case. However, the code also addresses fundamental issues of behaviour and conduct.
	Founded upon the seven principles of public life, the code states, for instance, that councillors must not abuse their position as councillors and that they must not disclose confidential information in an inappropriate manner. The code directly addresses matters more fundamental still—not just those that are fundamental to public life, but principles so fundamental that I hope that we would all strive to meet them unconsciously in everyday life. The code explicitly states:
	"You must treat others with respect",
	and says:
	"You must not...bully any person"
	or "intimidate any person".
	Let us take bullying as the most obvious example. Bullying, I hope we can all agree, is unacceptable. It does not matter whether bullying happens in the playground, the workplace, the Chamber or the barracks—any civilized society rejects it. That is why bullying is in the code—because it is a serious issue when it happens between individuals, damaging people, and because it is a serious matter when it happens in a local authority, damaging the working of the authority and, potentially, confidence in democracy if exposed, and the delivery of services if not. Simply put, unacceptable behaviour is not tolerated. Those who are guilty of misconduct are investigated and sanctions are brought against them. The conduct regime, underpinned by the members' code, will ensure that that continues to be the case.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the question whether the Government should allow standards committees to investigate, for example, allegations against local authority officials such as chief executives. He will be pleased to know that we recently held a consultation on whether there should be a model code of conduct for local authority officials, just as there is one for local authority members. We are currently considering the more than 1,000 responses to the consultation that we have received. The consultation included proposals to transport some aspects of the members' code to senior officials. The code will form part of an employee's terms and conditions of employment and could be used in any disciplinary procedures. I should just add that whether the standards committees or other bodies should have the authority to enforce the code is an issue on which we shall consult.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: There is no indication that there has been criminal intent, partly because Avon and Somerset police are involved, as is the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris). What has happened here is that there has been a desperation to do a deal for procurement, which neither side disagrees with. We agree in the House that efficiency is right. It is the undue haste and the way it was set up that has been the problem, but there is nothing criminal about that. It is just that the procedures were not followed and when somebody said, "Look, this is wrong", they sacked him. Another illustration is that the union leader, Nigel Behan, who has also tried to lead on this, has been fired as well. He is seeking reinstatement at the moment, so the issue has deepened, but there is no criminal intent.

Sadiq Khan: Let me conclude. I recognise that investigations into allegations of misconduct impact on reputations, careers and lives; they are not undertaken lightly. I recognise, too, that there are those who would try to twist the conduct regime, which is intended to give councillors an ethical framework to work within and to give the public a clear expectation of the standards of behaviour they can expect from those they voted for, to their own ends. I believe that the conduct regime is robust, reasonable and proportionate and that it provides a framework to work within and an enforcement method to address those who are guilty of misconduct, so helping to maintain confidence in democracy.
	I would like to thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater for raising some important issues tonight and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) for his important interventions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why I have not gone into specific detail about the history of the case he raised. I know that the Under-Secretary for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), was due to meet the hon. Gentleman today, and I am sure that he will be happy to reschedule the meeting in order to deal with the important issues raised about Southwest One.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.